Buying time might be one of the few “purchases” that does not require me to spend any money. Yet, the government’s decision to delay the digital TV conversion is just postponing a purchase for millions of Americans. And if we need to spend green, it is also nice to save some green. Regardless of whether or not your household is among the Neilson Media Research estimated 6.5 million unprepared, our analog televisions have a sustainable question to ask us as we face our three upgrade decisions: purchase a digital to analog converter box, purchase a digital television, or subscribe to a cable service.
Each one of these digital conversion alternatives consumes varying quantities of energy and resources. Cable service alone cannot decrease that 50 billion kilowatt hours of electricity US televisions consume. Digital televisions and converter boxes increase the quantity of energy required to produce and run those electronic items. However, should you decide to minimize energy and dispose of our analog televisions, consider that only 18% of consumer electronics, including TVs, are collected for recycling despite making up almost 2% of the municipal solid street waste. How can you possibly make the sustainable selection?
Consider the following if you are:
LiveEarth.org
Adding a converter box or a cable service
• Purchase and plug all electronics into a power strip and turn it off when done watching
• Ask your cable service provider about its cable and/or digital-to-analog converter boxes’ energy consumption when deciding upon or renewing a cable service contract.
• Look for a digital-to-analog converter box with an ENERGY STAR label. If all converter boxes met this spec, we could save 823 million kilowatt-hours of energy and $85 million in higher electricity bills.
• Select the “home” mode for brightness. The “retail” mode or “vivid” mode consumes 10-30% more power.
Purchasing a digital television
• Choose a LCD television. In some cases, LCDs can use 50% less energy than their plasma counterpart. A typical 42-inch plasma TV will cost at least $200 more to operate over the life of the product of a similar sized LCD.
• Purchase a smaller TV. Larger TVs use more energy than smaller ones using the same technology. You can save money on the store and on electricity.
• Ask if the retailer or manufacture will recycle your old TV. Best Buy, for example, will charge $10 to recycle any item with a physical screen and give a $10 gift card to each customer that recycles a television.
Disposing your analog television
• Donate. You can list your analog television on www.freecycle.com or on www.craigslist.org to find it a new home. Another alternative is to give your old TV to a charity organization. However, check whether or not the organization is accepting analog televisions in light of the pending digital transition.
• E-cycle. Investigate the following sites to locate your local e-cycler:
o www.earth911.com
o www.nrc-recycle.org
o www.mygreenelectronics.org
Of course, unless you cease watching television, once we have converted to digital, the next big question is how often to watch our televisions. This transition gives us the opportunity to change our television consumption behavior to create long-term environmental impacts. Let us use this delay to save some green all around.
Statistics Sources:
National Resource Defense Council
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Communications Commission
ENERGY STAR
Better keep those energy drinks close by, ‘cause we’re going to need ‘em
With record amounts of funding for energy efficiency and alternative energy likely to be included in the federal stimulus package, the practical implications of all of this money are beginning to set in. Indeed, at the recent Midwest Energy Solutions conference, sponsored by the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, discussion of the impending federal funding appeared to spark both euphoria and panic among industry professionals.
Clearly, the volume of spending will lead to a lot of new green collar jobs – the requisite number of knowledgeable contractors, program administrators, architects, and financiers simply doesn’t exist. The amount of spending under discussion is many times (some say upwards of 30 times) the level currently deployed annually. To put this in perspective, according to Sheree Dallas Branch, program manager with Wisconsin’s Department of Administration, approximately 100,000 homes are weatherized annually under existing DOE programs – and 10% of those are in Wisconsin alone. The President’s plan calls for 2,000,000 homes to be weatherized. For the mathematically challenged, that’s a very large increase.
I believe the funding offers an even more compelling opportunity. Because most energy efficiency programs are tied to utility sponsored initiatives, evaluation centers almost exclusively on “cost effectiveness.” This analysis looks at the costs to save the kWh or therm as compared to the cost to produce or procure them. The analysis completely ignores other benefits, such as employment, social equity, carbon savings, or reductions in other harmful emissions. The analysis also is completely detached from metrics the public cares most about – ones focusing on how individual households or communities are better off. It is no wonder we have such trouble engaging public support for energy efficiency programs.
In contrast, the stimulus package, as the name implies, is focused on stimulus – economic output and job creation. These are metrics that the public cares deeply about. It is my sincere hope that the federal funding not only catalyzes the industry and marketplace, but even more fundamentally, alters the way we evaluate energy efficiency programs and how we communicate their benefits to the wider world.
On yet another freezing day in Chicago, it might seem odd to contemplate days when the temperature is over 100 degrees. But that is a great metric for what we are facing with climate change. Chicago currently has about two days a year with temperatures above 100 degrees. If we do nothing about greenhouse gas emissions, by the end of the century, Chicago is projected to have 31 such days. Essentially, each year we would have a month of extreme heat. And while I may not like the cold, I really don’t like extreme heat.
Thinking about roasting in the future is no fun and considering the broader impacts on buildings, ecosystems, and other structures is even less pleasant. However, I recently attended a summit by the Chicago Climate Action Plan, and it had some uplifting news. The City of Chicago has broken down the challenge of addressing climate change into specific tactics, and at the meeting they gave updates on actual progress.
Take housing, for example. Buildings overall are the key issue for Chicago; 70% of emissions come from this sector. This is often a surprise for people because so often we focus only on the emissions associated with transportation. (Transportation is also huge, but only 21%.) Within buildings, you have the housing sector. The city has actually documented retrofits to over 6,000 units of residential housing that have been completed in the past year. Completed! These units are seeing double-digit reductions in energy use – preventing emissions and saving money.
Now 6,000 units may sound like a lot, but the goal is to complete 400,000 by 2020 to mitigate the 1.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that need to be offset. So there is huge growth to come. While many organizations will be driving some of these changes, ShoreBank looks forward continuing to encourage more property owners to incorporate energy saving improvements by offering the financial services and technical assistance that make it possible. We like summer – we want to keep it livable!
Definitions of winter weather differ throughout our country. I cannot help but be jealous of my San Franciscan friends’ 70 degree weather forecast as I bundle up to face my Chicago 10 degree (and falling!) weather. The chill of my first Chicago winter has driven my poor San Franciscan self to uncover as many alternative heating solutions as possible. Luckily, because I work at ShoreBank, my search for warming methods was short-lived. A science officer at ShoreBank’s sister company, ShoreBank Pacific, had already assembled the following list of winterization tips that will both warm and reduce monthly heating bill costs for almost everybody, regardless of their definition of winter weather.
Winterize You & Your Home
• Dress in comfortable layers instead of turning up your thermostat
• Put up storm doors and windows
• Seal air links to minimize drafts
• Winterize AC and water lines
• Check, clean, and replace filters on air intakes and furnaces
• Clean gutters and downspouts. Make sure that water is directed away from the foundation.
Plan to Warm Your Future Winters
• Tune-up your heating system
• Install a smart programmable thermostat
• Replace old windows and doors with highly efficient units
• Check your furnace’s age to see if it is time to invest in a new highly efficient one
• Boost insulation in floors, ceilings, and walls as much as there is space for (20% above code is a good goal)
• Use durable materials when replacing roofs and siding. This will reduce maintenance costs over several decades
This week, I shall implement operation ‘dress in layers’ and ‘seal my drafty windows.’ What will you implement?
Although it’s terribly cliché to do so, given that change in the air and the fact that uncertainty clouds any economic prognostication, I will take this opportunity to offer a few predictions for 2009. I must admit, however, that as a Cubs fan, my DNA is programmed for eternal optimism:
1. The acronym PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) will become common parlance throughout the country, not just on the coasts. With President-elect Obama pronouncing the doubling of alternate energy a central goal of his administration and financing for any project still difficult to obtain under nearly any circumstance, specialty financial vehicles such as the PPA will be the preferred mechanism for getting solar projects off the ground. 2. Within the green building industry, interest in existing buildings will take precedence over the previous focus on new construction. As new projects have trouble getting off the ground, more attention will be paid to making our existing homes, offices and community facilities more efficient and environmentally sound.
3. This focus on existing buildings will lead to a fundamental shift in how we evaluate “green” buildings. We will no longer look to LEED Platinum as the preeminent standard, but instead to specific gains in energy and water efficiency. We can only hope that in 2009, when homeowners are asked about their HERS rating, there will no longer will be that awkwardness reminiscent of high school days gone by.
4. Because overall construction levels will fall significantly, green building’s share of total construction activity will exceed 10% – the level projected by many to be reached in 2010.
5. Interest in energy/water efficiency and sustainable practices may finally catch on with the general public, altering even kitchen and bath remodeling decisions.
6. The US will finally come to grips with its most pressing construction problem – the fact that construction practices are evaluated almost entirely on completion metrics (“on-time” and “on-budget”) and only rarely on performance metrics. Indeed, by far the most common concern raised by small contactors about green practices is not their lack of “expertise” in this area. It is the fact that their work is evaluated against design, product and performance specifications. Until we realize that we have never truly evaluated the performance of most contractors, we will not see significant reductions in energy consumption, nor I believe, come up with a pragmatic mechanism for promoting green collar job opportunities for smaller, under-capitalized firms that must now “guarantee” performance over the long term.
Last month, I had the distinct pleasure to attend a unique conference in the truly world-class city of Berlin. The conference, organized by KfW, a German Development Bank, focused on how to “green” the financial services industry around the globe – from microfinance institutions focused on the very poor to the larger commercial banks targeting small and medium enterprises in more affluent areas. Particular attention was focused on the innovative work being done on financing of energy efficiency and alternative energy projects throughout the world. The participants voiced a near unanimous concern that the current financial crisis had greatly hindered on-going efforts to green the banking sector and that decisive action was needed in the next few months to maintain the momentum.
The discussion raised a fundamental question about the best strategy for achieving the dual objectives of ensuring adequate financing for green efforts and institutionalizing green lending in the commercial banking sector. My take is that due to the compressed timeline for reorienting the economy away from fossil fuels and given the depth and breadth of the financial crisis, these two objectives may no longer overlap. I am not convinced that we have the time to incrementally incent existing banks to increase their green lending – the hurdles are simply too great to get them to do so and time available way too short. Instead, I think we will need to look seriously at capitalizing (new or existing) institutions focused on the green sector and hope that their efforts and outsized returns lead more established entities to enter the market later.
Certainly, in the US, we have seen how institutions focused on developing financial products for new markets have transformed banking. I need only look outside my window to see the results. When ShoreBank was founded, no banks thought of low wealth areas as ideal places to grow and thrive. Today, ShoreBank faces increasing competition from mainstream banks in these communities and we now have commercial banks and other types of financial intermediaries on nearly every corner surrounding our branches. Our success was a catalyst for a wholesale change in the overall industry. I believe a similar pioneering effort is now needed within the green sector.
Chicago got hit with its first snowfall and the forecast calling for rough sledding ahead for the nation’s economy means homeowners will consume more energy at a time when they can least afford to.
Don’t put a ‘bah’ in your ‘humbug this winter. Invest in a solution that has the potential to create good paying jobs and to reduce energy costs by up to 45 percent—making energy-efficient improvements to your homes and offices. This is ShoreBank’s mission because it makes good economic sense—costs are rapidly recouped by the energy-savings whole adding value and comfort to the home—it reduces greenhouse gas emissions which is good for the environment.
On occasion, we want to tell you about our customers who share our values and believe in our mission whose own work is inspiring others. We are very excited that Van Jones, the founder and president of Green for All and a fellow with the Center for American Progress is a high yield savings account customer. In 2007, Van worked closely with U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) to pass the Green Jobs Act of 2007, authorizing $125 million to re-train 35,000 people in how to build new green design homes, thereby creating new “green-collar jobs that will be around in the days ahead. Other green jobs include adding insulation and double-paned, low-e windows to increase energy efficiency, and attaching solar panels to homes to reduce electric bills.
It is exciting time because the new administration has sent strong signals that it is committed to an alternative energy strategy that significantly reduces our dependence on foreign oil and safeguards the environment while it helps to put people to work.
As these issues continues to heat up, we encourage you to actively engage in the discussion and check out what Van has to say:
ShoreBank and Van’s organization, Green For All, understand environmental sustainability is essential to the present and long-term health and well-being of our economy and our communities
If you would like to learn more about ShoreBank’s thoughts on this and other issues, please subscribe to our RSS feed. The more people who visit our blog, the greater the impact we can make. Share this link and please let us know what you think!
An energy efficiency financing option receiving a significant amount of attention in policy discussions is “on-bill” financing. On-bill financing involves providing a utility-extending credit for various energy efficiency improvements, and then adding the ensuing loan payments to the beneficiaries’ utility bills. Proponents of the approach point to several benefits. For one, utilities already have elaborate billing systems, so transaction costs are limited – it’s just one more line item on an established customer’s bill. For another, there exists a notion that consumers are leery of having another bill to pay, so households may be more willing to undertake the improvements if the ensuing payments are simply added to an ongoing bill. Finally, there is a sentiment that customers will go out of their way to make payments if they are part of the household’s utility bill since failing to do so could result in “shut-offs” or cessation of utility service.
While I see potential value in the on-bill financing notion, I think we should critically examine the underlying rationale before moving too quickly to implement this concept.
Clearly, there is some validity to the notion that on-bill financing would have low transaction costs – especially for smaller projects, such as those costing less than $5,000. Yet, I am not convinced these costs are less manageable for other types of institutions, such as credit card companies, that routinely extend credit for even lower amounts.
Secondly, I am skeptical that very many efficiency projects have been derailed because of consumers’ concerns about having another bill to pay. With the average household possessing seven different credit cards, and with over-leveraged consumers being one of the key drivers of the current financial meltdown, it seems hard to imagine consumers running from any form of credit.
Most of all, however, I am reluctant to believe utilities will have lower losses than other lending institutions. If foreclosures are at record levels, utility payments must be faltering as well. Certainly, local press reports here in Chicago have indicated that shut-offs have risen dramatically at both the natural gas and electric utilities.
Given that utilities will charge all rate-payers for any losses that ensue, it would seem prudent to carefully analyze the risks and realities of the approach. My concern is that if on-bill financing is not implemented carefully, it could easily become a regressive tax on low income households that act responsibly and manage their financial obligations appropriately.
To ensure households have access to appropriate and responsible financing options for energy efficiency projects, ShoreBank continues to explore ways to use private capital to underwrite these critically important investments.
Green Festival™, a joint project of Global Exchange and Co-Op America, kicks off a three day festival today in San Francisco. ShoreBank will be there, and is very excited to sponsor tonight’s After Green Festival Party at Mars Bar. If you’re in San Francisco, we invite you to join other green leaders at the event to network and discuss how we can encourage environmental sustainability to change the world. But of course, exciting green innovation and dialogue should not be limited to one location. For example, the story of our clients Tim and Charles Heppner reminds us all that you don’t have to be in San Francisco to implement a ‘do-it-yourself’ approach to ‘greening’ the world.
Brothers Tim and Charles Heppner are rebuilding a 100 year-old wood frame single family residence on the South Side of Chicago, and are implementing energy efficiency improvements that will make it the greenest home in the city! Many DIY projects focus on interior finishes or fixtures while missing the energy basics, but here they are addressed head-on. In addition to the usual insulating strategies, triple-glazed windows with deep overhangs will be used for passive solar heating. The home will have no incandescent lights (perhaps a first in modern Chicago renovation). A shallow hydronic earth-loop will preheat or precool air entering the energy recovery ventilator – this simplified take on a ground-source heat pump (minus the heat pump) may also be a first in Chicago. Rough-ins for future solar electric or hot water panels will make it easy for the brothers to add these features over time.
Tim and Charles began work on this project by deconstructing the internal structure of the original house, reclaiming hundreds of linear feet of old growth forest wood framing, hardwood flooring, sub-flooring and joists. They also recycled all the metal, concrete, glass blocks and windows with the assistance of a local scrapper. All their new materials are required to meet at least one of the following criteria: sustainable, durable, recycled/recovered content, produced locally, low or no VOC, formaldehyde free, plantation grown, rapidly renewable, or FSC certified. They intend to utilize the reclaimed materials for framing up window openings, reinstalling hardwood flooring and building custom kitchen cabinets.
The home takes advantage of the ample property surrounding it by including a large rain garden and bioswale in addition to a vegetated garage roof. Crushed limestone will be used in place of concrete for all sidewalks, addressing both stormwater management and urban heat island. A new reflective metal roof will be installed – a rarity in the shingle-loving Midwest.
We are really proud to be a part of Tim and Charles’ project. Watch and listen to their story and let it inspire you to change the world.
One of the most interesting changes in the energy efficiency arena is the extent to which finance has come to be more fully recognized as a key element of any effort. This recognition represents a fundamental shift from just a few years ago, when ShoreBank launched its energy efficiency lending programs, including our Homeowners’ Energy Conservation Loan Program.
The shift comes at an interesting moment given the turmoil in the banking sector, but I think presents a unique opportunity to develop more inclusive and creative financing options. With loans from conventional sources more difficult to come by, ensuring low cost, accessible financing options is critical. Developing these new lending vehicles will likely mean reaching out to more creative lenders, such as community development financial institutions (CDFIs).
In the past, CDFIs have been largely absent from policy discussions around energy efficiency, yet they present a tremendous vehicle for reaching less affluent communities and for leveraging philanthropic, utility, and public benefit funding. One only has to look at the excellent work done by The Reinvestment Fund in Philadelphia to see the possibilities. With home equity loans practically non-existent, reaching carbon reduction goals will require a broader dialogue and new partnerships.
Indeed, the credit freeze could not have come at a more inopportune time given climate goals. A recent analysis conducted by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development suggesting existing homes must reduce energy usage by a much greater levels than previously thought if carbon goals are to be met. However, the lack of financing options for homeowners presents one more impediment to meeting climate goals.
Buying time might be one of the few “purchases” that does not require me to spend any money. Yet, the government’s decision to delay the digital TV conversion is just postponing a purchase for millions of Americans. And if we need to spend green, it is also nice to save some green. Regardless of whether or not your household is among the Neilson Media Research estimated 6.5 million unprepared, our analog televisions have a sustainable question to ask us as we face our three upgrade decisions: purchase a digital to analog converter box, purchase a digital television, or subscribe to a cable service.
Take housing, for example. Buildings overall are the key issue for Chicago; 70% of emissions come from this sector. This is often a surprise for people because so often we focus only on the emissions associated with transportation. (Transportation is also huge, but only 21%.) Within buildings, you have the housing sector. The city has actually documented retrofits to over 6,000 units of residential housing that have been completed in the past year. Completed! These units are seeing double-digit reductions in energy use – preventing emissions and saving money.
Winterize You & Your Home
